What do you guys think? I find it silly, counterintuitive and detrimental to the "create land through landgrabbing" aspect of the game that you can do a bunch of harmless GS to prevent landgrabs on someone.

it helps small clans

Ever heard of war?

Not every change to help netting will help the game.

if you don't like it, kill the people doing it. If you're not strong enough to impose your will on them, then too bad.

It won't just help netting, it will help warring as well. The point of diminishing returns was to help small countries not be bullied too much. In a war, diminishing returns should not even exist.

Also ponderer, it's not about the fact that I don't like it personally because if affects me. The problem is it harms the game as a whole to have idiotic features like this that prevent actual competition and are illogical and so easily abusable.

So you think it should be easier to kill a single country? That is retarded. The FS from a 60-country tag could wipe out a 40-country tag completely if you take out DRs.

Diminishing returns makes since and is a fact of life in almost everything in life. It makes since and is a good thing for the game.

Maybe a possible solution to your problem, which I do see it as cheap game play, would be not to link the diminishing returns of GSing to the diminishing returns of LGing. In other words if you are deep in diminishing returns from being GS'd it would have no effect on the diminishing returns of a SS or PS. Independent of each other. That may solve the problem?

I think its already widely acknowledged that FS are overpowered atm. Getting rid of DR on special attacks would make FSs even more powerful - to the point where whoever gets the FS will pretty much win the war.

torment we know this however it doesn't mean there isn't a problem or solution to what he is talking about. There is nothing wrong with brain storming for solutions- it doesn't mean we have to do anything.

I would encourage any and all ideas or complaints. Only good can come from it. Although this thread may be better suited for the B&S board.

One problem with Earth:2025 was that the game was stale for a long period, this is a way we can evolve the game over time.

I am going to agree with Beltz for the second time today. I don't know how this happened. One of the things that has hurt this game over the past 10 years is the extent of stonewalling due to diminished returns. When a player who is near the computer 24/7 is attacked, he has the incredible ability to stonewall forever. This means that countries are less susceptible to death based not on how well the countries were built, but instead on the activity of a given player.

In this way, we discourage new players from joining war alliances or participating in wars in general. The cost of killing a country should be the main determiner in target selection. To an extent it is. Stonewalling in my opinion needs to be based more on keeping cash on hand, having allies with cash on hand, and the build of your country, its tech, and its military rather than on an ability to login 24/7.

In this way, I am not trying to say stonewalling is a bad thing for the game. In fact, the opposite is true. I just do not believe that diminished returns in their current capacity are good for the game.

*Cue violins for torment*

It's not like there's some way we could remove DRs from special attacks and then scale special attack losses so that you still need roughly the same number of hits to get a kill or anything.

That's crazy talk!

sorry to dissapoint there but what aponic said made a lot of sense too.

I am pretty sure there are no diminishing returns on special attacks. As in special attacks increase DR depth but DR has no effect on special attacks.

I am also pretty sure Belts was talking about putting a country in DR so that future grabs on it would be less effective and that that aspect of DR should be removed.

rofl. think people need to re-learn this game. =)

Diminishing returns have NEVER affected special attacks... you kill 300 civs one turn and 290 the next because the country has less civs to kill... if DR really affected special attacks, you'd go from 2k civs first 3 hits, 1k the few hits after, then plumit down to 10/5civs within the first 15 hits...

what beltz is saying we should get rid of is the fact that a GS/BR adds to the depth of DR, as a few GS's means that if i were to try to LG the one who was GS'd, i'd get a lot less than if he hadn't been GS'd.

Beltz is trying to say that this is stupidity and that GS/BR/WHATEVER shouldn't effect SS/PS gains at all.

and, I agree with beltz. tho this has never really affected me, I can see how it can effect others. if clans still want to put each other in to DR, they can SS/PS each other. see how that works out.

this should probably go to B&S board anyway, right?

Can someone please explain to me why Imag members seem to know more about warring mechanics than every other alliance, despite not really caring about winning wars?

we've fought enough to know how they work?

either that or you've finally outted us as people who actually do care ... =/

(maybe not about "winning")

Well whatever your motivations, thank you, it's refreshing to see.

You were doing pretty well up until there. It implies that you want to punish activity. There once was a time when a good waller was more valuable than a killer. I have seen wars turned on the efforts of a few great walling performances. (Dragon comes to mind - he was a walling god).

I am not sure that the current rules are all that bad, being able to GS team mates to restrain rampant farming is one of the few tools a small tag has at its disposal. If somebody uses it to cripple retals, they are probably going to get killed for it anyway.

Dragon is the best waller in the game.

To the point where people just decide not to kill him.

Because we're not the newbs and hacks everyone has always taken us for. We're a group of very experienced players who like to experiment with off-beat things in game. It's hard to experiment if you don't understand the fundamentals though.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I'm just going to throw this out there cause its like the first thing that came to mind after reading this informative thread...

What about military strategy tech? could that work defensively as well coupled with other factors like NW differences, some part of DRs?? I mean if you can use Military Strategy to help you gain more land...can't it be used to help you lose less land as well?

erh whats been posted on this thread is pretty much common knowledge especially since you know it slagpit ;)

And i dont agree with beltz on this matter

-FS are overpowered but only because the game "sped up" and no one updated the mechanics to go with it. 120(120) turns is the problem. You can fix this simply by having special attacks take more turns, or by lowering the amount of turns that can be held at once, say to 90(90). Or by just slowing the game down toward what it was before.

Stonewalling as it was in the past is not what it is in the present. The largest alliance is barely 70 members. The medium sized alliances are 30-45

Med tech should help prevent civ losses from GS/BR as well as mil losses. That would be badass. You could balance that by having greater returns on countries without it.

the game sped up in turns and readiness regain and high amount of turns stored, thats at least 3 factors

readiness regain has always been 3% per turn used and minimum readiness loss from an attack other than missiles has always been 7% for as long as i can remember, especially well before the number of turns has been increased.

I, personally, love having more turns.. i probably would stop playing if the pace of the game slowed down to 80/80 and i think a few others would too.. people want faster paced games these days.. and 120/120 is far from too fast. i wouldn't be too annoyed if alliance took a page out of express's book and limited the stored turns to maybe 120/60 or 70. but slowing down the pace of hte game all-together for the sake of a seemingly too powerful FS isn't a good idea.

i see these arguments about news bots and SMS automation as against the FS.. but, if anything, these things only help the defenders. they are great, and I'm happy the game owners condone and support it.

med tech changes would be nice, as vic said.


i still feel that war should be made more interesting rather than slowed down. may it be new types of attacks or a (i hate this game but..) utopian style where you can send something at the enemy's clan that pillages them for X turns. war really needs to be more interesting. even make BR or GS destroy less and conquest some of what they would destroy.. so instead of destroying 500 buildings, destroy 100 and take 100. that'd be nice and would tie warring more in with netgaining.

*shrug* there's many ways to make war better, slowing the game down just isn't the right one IMO.

this seems like a suggestion. There is a B&S board for such threads. Please use it...

readiness regain used to be 2%

its one of the changes that made demo suck for war, you used to lose 1% with demo now you gain 2%

what he means by this is that iMag has done enough AB's in the past to know they aren't effective but you still drop your buildings flatten in a close relationship to the buildings left.

it always has been that way.



I disagree with taking defends on special attacks out of the formula of DR. It would destroy wars. Anybody that happened to get on to wall would only be subject to huge land grabbing due to huge drop in military levels.

The only way I could see this as a valid argument is if maybe when you declare war on someone you can bypass the coupled DR as to limit the gang-bang.

meh, i already mentioned that.



that must have been more than 10 years ago then.




why not just make it so a GS/BR does add to DR, but only like 1/10th(even 1/100th) that of an SS/PS. no need to make special arrangments for those who have declared or haven't declared war.

Indeed readiness used to be different, and yes this was like 10 to 12 years ago :) Back then there was conditionning tech which could boost readiness regain by up to 200% though, so this added an interesting aspect to war preparation.

Removing this also further increased farming of small countries since it was now possible to do 30 landgrabs a day...

Yay conditioning tech!

conditioning tech was kindof cool for sure :)

bring back conditioning tech

conditioning tech wasn't in all the time i don't think, so there were more different ways readiness worked

I thought conditioning tech allowed you to send more with minimal readiness loss?

Can't really remember been too long.

Conditioning Tech: By improving the training and conditioning process for your military, you can reduce the amount of readiness lost in attacks. This allows your troops to remain healthier and attack more often.